ptanner... Re..I didn't see this link to Sander's testimony here yet: microsoft.com
Thanks to Trident over at Ace's for the link.<<<<<<<<<<
Sorry for my delay answering this. Instead of being made a fool of, as many here, and in the press thought, this may have been Jerry's piece de resistance. When you read the transcript, it puts a whole new light upon the matter. For Instance
3762
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And then you told Mr. Gates in this same call that you were
3 not interested in having Microsoft announce support of Intel's
4 Yamhill before Microsoft announced support of AMD's Hammer;
5 correct?
6 A. Yes. There was no Yamhill.
7 Q. But you told Mr. Gates in this call that you were not
8 interested in having Microsoft announce support for Intel
9 before Microsoft announced support of AMD's Hammer, did you
10 not, sir?
11 A. I asked Mr. Gates to hold Intel to the same standard he
12 held us and not announce public support until he had seen a
13 working platform with real silicon executing code. So that
14 would imply he could not announce it before us because Intel is
15 years behind us. <<<<<<<
Instead of Jerry saying he wanted MSFT to drop Yamhill, Jerry simply said that he wanted MSFT to at least announce support at the same time for Hammer as MSFT did for Intel. What is wrong with that? What is especially interesting is this part.
And you're familiar, are you not, sir, from -- with
25 the issue that has arisen in this case, the finding of fact --
3774
1 scratch that.
2 You're familiar, are you not, with the issue in this
3 case of Mr. Gates telling Intel that Microsoft would not
4 support AMD, your company, if Intel would back off its work on
5 a fast cross-platform Java.
6 You're familiar with that, are you not?
7 A. I understand a proposal of that nature was put forth but
8 never materialized.
9 Q. And had that proposal materialized, for example, that would
10 have had a devastating effect on AMD; correct?
11 A. Would have had a negative effect on us, but I think it was
12 on a specific set of instructions that AMD had innovated.
13 Those instructions were for an enhancement of our floating
14 point performance which would improve 3D graphics.
15 Microsoft's engineering people recommended that
16 Microsoft support those instructions, and the recommendation
17 was made to the highest level.
18 I understand discussions were made of a business
19 nature of whether they should support those and if Intel, who
20 didn't want them supported, would do something that Microsoft
21 wanted.
22 Discussions were made. As I said, the end of the day
23 nothing ever happened on that. Microsoft supported our
24 instruction extensions. And I expect Microsoft will support
25 our x86 64-bit instruction extensions.
3775
1 Q. And what you understood was offered was that Mr. Gates told
2 Intel that Microsoft would not support AMD's instruction set if
3 Intel would back off its work on a fast cross-platform Java;
4 correct?
5 MR. WARDEN: Excuse me, Your Honor. I didn't object
6 to one question and answer on this, but the witness has no
7 personal knowledge of any of this. This is asking him
8 questions out of the record at the liability trial in this
9 case.
10 THE COURT: I think you're going to have to put it in
11 the context of how much he actually knows.
12 If he has not read the record, then does he know
13 anything beyond this conversation and what the source of it is?
14 He's given you part of an answer here to some of the earlier --
15 BY MR. GUTMAN:
16 Q. In fact, at your deposition you explained that you told
17 Mr. Warden, when you met with him to prepare for your
18 deposition, that you were familiar with that story; isn't that
19 correct?
20 A. Yes, but I was familiar with the story that Microsoft had
21 proposed to Intel not supporting something we wanted, if Intel
22 would do something that they wanted.
23 I didn't realize frankly at the time of my
24 conversation with Mr. Warden it was about this particular Java
25 thing. I learned that only when I had a cursory examination of
3776
1 some documents that apparently you were going to present in
2 this case, which included some e-mails that related to this
3 Java language support that Microsoft objected to. So this is
4 all kind of new to me. I've known about this for a grand total
5 of 24 hours.
6 Q. Can you turn to your deposition on page 13, sir?
7 THE COURT: Line what?
8 MR. GUTMAN: I just want to check.
9 Line 13.
10 BY MR. GUTMAN:
11 Q. It says: (Reading) What, if anything, else did Mr. Ward --
12 and I guess that's Mr. Warden; correct?
13 A. You're correct, it's Mr. Warden. I apologize.
14 Q. -- (Reading) say to you when you met with him?
15 "Answer: He asked me if I was aware that in some
16 discussions with Intel that Mr. Gates, Bill Gates of Microsoft,
17 had proposed something which would be disadvantageous to AMD if
18 Intel would do something which would be advantageous to
19 Microsoft. And I said I was aware of that discussion.
20 "Question: And specifically what was the discussion that
21 you were aware of?"
22 The answer appears on page 14, line 10. After some
23 objections.
24 "THE WITNESS: There was time when Intel, my
25 understanding of the software issue is a little soft, but there
3777
1 was an approach made, I believe, to have Intel not support the
2 Java language, and if Intel wouldn't support the Java
3 language -- I don't know what that means by not supporting the
4 Java language -- that Microsoft wouldn't support AMD's
5 microprocessor requirements."
6 Were you asked those questions and did you give those
7 answers, sir?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And it's true, Mr. Sanders, is it not, that if monopoly --
10 that if AMD lost the support of Microsoft, that would represent
11 a serious blow to the 14,000 employees and the $3.9 billion of
12 annual revenue of AMD?
13 MR. WARDEN: Asked and answered.
14 THE COURT: Are you talking about now, then or what?
15 MR. GUTMAN: Now.
16 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead and answer.
17 A. If we lost the support of Microsoft for our operating
18 systems, yes, that would be devastating.
19 But I'd only point out we have the same instruction
20 set as Intel, and it's in Microsoft's interest to support that
21 instruction set. It comprises the totality of the 150 million-
22 unit PC market. Microsoft supports AMD and Intel instruction
23 sets. They are the same instruction set.
24 Q. Which is why I asked, when you said that the last time,
25 Mr. Sanders, about two things.
3778
1 One, the extension from the Hammer instruction set
2 versus Yamhill, and, two, your awareness of the conversation
3 that Mr. Gates had with -- that if Intel would back off its
4 support of Java, that they would no longer support your
5 microprocessor. Do you recall that? <<<<<<<<<
That part really hit the nail on the head, and explains Jerry's actions. Jerry has been waiting for a yr. for an official announcement from MSFT about supporting Hammer. MSFT stalls. Jerry then hears of Yamhill and then hears of a potential deal between Bill and Craig where Bill would drop AMD if Intel would drop Java. So when Bill called, Jerry says "Yeah I will do you a favor", and follows it up with a request for an announcement of support for Hammer. When Bill says, "Call my engineers and we will see." Jerry knows Bill is stalling. What better way to bring the deal to light than to bring it up before the court in the monopoly case. Just how did Mr Guttman know which questions to ask in the right way that Jerry wanted? Probably because Jerry had someone tell him exactly what to ask in the deposition, and in court. I know from my experiences in court, that if an expert witness doesn't want to say something, he just doesn't remember it period. Just like Clinton couldn't remember a blow job in the office 2 wks earlier. It is likely the only way the second part of the conversation would have come out, is if Jerry wanted it to. While we here speculated on just such a deal,between Intel and MSFT to screw AMD, I never heard of anything definite, but this makes it sound like Craig and Bill were seriously contemplating it. With Jerry bringing it up in court, that could very well put the kabash on that plan. That is also why Jerry never read about the states side of the case. Jerry didn't want to know, and had no intention of trying to sound like a hypocrite.
This definitely sounds vintage Jerry. Once Bill called, Jerry had his opportunity, and took it. What better way to do it than pretend he was helping Bill. One thing I can't figure out is, if Jerry said all of that to Bill in that telephone call, that Bill still used him as a favorable witness; especially after Jerry's deposition. Bill's lawyers should have seen it coming. The fact that they didn't speaks volumes. |
